New AI Features and Extension Fair Usage

[freler]

Seriously you need ChatGPT to understand the table? You don't know what an extension or a user is in 3CX? Each extension or user can have both a webclient and an app and even a DeskPhone no problem. You should know this as a Gold partner.

Hi,
Maybe I’m being a bit slow here, but I think what confuses people (myself included) is the first two columns in the table :

“# User / Ext Range” and “Max # User / Ext.”

They both mention “User/Ext,” so it’s hard to tell what exactly is being measured in each.
A brief clarification in the table legend might avoid a lot of confusion — even for ChatGPT and us mere humans
Thanks

 

[SweetAction]

Hi,
Maybe I’m being a bit slow here, but I think what confuses people (myself included) is the first two columns in the table :

“# User / Ext Range” and “Max # User / Ext.”

They both mention “User/Ext,” so it’s hard to tell what exactly is being measured in each.
A brief clarification in the table legend might avoid a lot of confusion — even for ChatGPT and us mere humans
Thanks

Users and Extensions are the same things.
The first column is saying this is the recommended amount of users (or extensions) for that licence.
The second column is saying this is the max amount of users for that license.

Devices connected to that user/extension is not limited (so you can have 12 hardphones and 6 apps connected, it's still 1)

 

[Colby D.]

Queues and Ring Groups can have customized voicemail greeting messages.

With that said the queue doesnt allow you to specify an email address to send to, you either choose the voicemail of the queue itself which sends to all members of the queue or send to a dummy extension to specify an email.

An example where the above is an issue is in the automotive industry, we have a queue for sales customers that have 10-20 agents in the queue, and the sales manager wants any voicemails left to go to a custom group of users. Typically we create a distribution list in 365, make a dummy extension, and set the email address of the dummy extension to the distribution list to achieve the routing purposes.

If there was an option in queues/ring groups/digital receptionist to choose send to voicemail and specify an email address that would reduce the need for dummy extensions for the distribution groups created. Either via specifying an email address at the queue/ivr/ring group level OR an additional system extension section/entry for non-user voicemail boxes where for space/performance reasons the voicemail is immediately emailed and then deleted for the mailbox.

 

[freler]

Hi, thanks for the explanations so far.
There is still an ambiguity in the table logic.

With 820 users, one can reasonably read the table in two ways:

A) “Max column is the real cap.”
Since 820 ≤ 1152, the row with Max # User/Ext = 1152 (192 SC, €8,995) would be compliant, regardless of the “401–600” label in the first column.

B) “Range column is mandatory.”
The first column is an enforced range, so 820 users must move to the 801–1550 row (which maps to 512 SC, €18,995), while the “Max” column is only a generous ceiling within that range.

The table doesn’t say which rule applies. If B is the intended interpretation, could you please adjust the headers/legend to something like:
– “Recommended user range for this license” (enforced)
– “Absolute max users/extensions allowed under this license” (hard cap within the range)
and add a footnote: “Pick the row that matches your user count; the ‘Max’ column is a not-to-exceed limit inside that row.”

Without that clarification, many readers (myself included) will pick interpretation A, because it is mathematically consistent with the “Max” column and makes the first column look optional/redundant.
Thanks!

 

[etiCloud]

3CX need to make a way of creating generic company voicemail before enforcing these rules, as currently we have to use a user extension to attach a voicemail mailbox too, I currently put these in a department, so I know how many actual extensions I have and how many are being used as generic mailboxes, groups or company, the suggestion of forwarding at trunk is impractical as it uses the hours of work in 3cx to switch back and forth, I run at a much lower ration than 3CX are suggesting and they seem reasonable, but I think most users utilise extensions for the same reason, so please add voicemail mailboxes that do not need a user extension to send to to make this extension limit fair and reasonable the other way.

 

[etiCloud]

With that said the queue doesnt allow you to specify an email address to send to, you either choose the voicemail of the queue itself which sends to all members of the queue or send to a dummy extension to specify an email.

An example where the above is an issue is in the automotive industry, we have a queue for sales customers that have 10-20 agents in the queue, and the sales manager wants any voicemails left to go to a custom group of users. Typically we create a distribution list in 365, make a dummy extension, and set the email address of the dummy extension to the distribution list to achieve the routing purposes.

If there was an option in queues/ring groups/digital receptionist to choose send to voicemail and specify an email address that would reduce the need for dummy extensions for the distribution groups created. Either via specifying an email address at the queue/ivr/ring group level OR an additional system extension section/entry for non-user voicemail boxes where for space/performance reasons the voicemail is immediately emailed and then deleted for the mailbox.

I have just posted similar, we need to be able to specify an email or a separate section for a mailbox only account that is not counted as an extension seems a fair option, I have no issue with the ratio recommendations and they seem reasonable, but to count user extensions we have to use for mailboxes feels bad.

 

[SteveITS]

Since the Max column is not inside the Recommended range I think it's pretty clear that the Recommended numbers are recommended (for space/performance/etc. reasons), but if the PBX admin adds more, there is a maximum.

re: dummy extensions, we have a few in our fleet, though not enough to impact user counts. We use them for things like a shared mailbox (so the staff knows if a message was listened to or not), or multiple layers of call scheduling/handling. Brainstorming, perhaps there could be a setting to "block all logins" for web, phone, etc., so they don't count.

 

[freler]

Since the Max column is not inside the Recommended range I think it's pretty clear that the Recommended numbers are recommended (for space/performance/etc. reasons), but if the PBX admin adds more, there is a maximum.

re: dummy extensions, we have a few in our fleet, though not enough to impact user counts. We use them for things like a shared mailbox (so the staff knows if a message was listened to or not), or multiple layers of call scheduling/handling. Brainstorming, perhaps there could be a setting to "block all logins" for web, phone, etc., so they don't count.

That’s actually very helpful — and quite a shift in understanding.

If Column 1 is what’s now being referred to as “Recommended,” that changes the whole picture. Up to now, that first column was understood as the actual limit, not just a performance guideline.

So the way it reads now:
• Column 1 (Recommended) → advised operational range for stability/performance,
• Column 2 (Max) → the real hard limit the system can technically handle.

In that case, it’s fair to say the “Recommended” numbers are guidance for optimal operation — not enforcement boundaries.

Also interesting that we’re no longer talking about concurrent calls, which used to be the true licensing metric until October 20. The shift toward extension counts changes both the sizing logic and the interpretation of what’s actually being limited.

And clearly, interpretations vary depending on who you ask — integrators, silver partners, and even the vendor seem to have slightly different readings. That alone says a lot: these are recommendations, not hard constraints.

In short: below Max you’re still within spec, even if outside the comfort zone.

 

[fxbastler]

I don't want to over-dramatize this, but if someone on a 3CX with a few users needs a ton of personalized messages or uses a ton of individual email recipients, then we would always prefer to use a CFD app or call script - simply because it's easier to maintain there and clearer.

 

[SweetAction]

I don't want to over-dramatize this, but if someone on a 3CX with a few users needs a ton of personalized messages or uses a ton of individual email recipients, then we would always prefer to use a CFD app or call script - simply because it's easier to maintain there and clearer.

For those comfortable with a CFD, sure. But you can't argue that most end users like point and click and CFD scares them and that a dummy extension is easy.

 

[ABerry-CBM]

I would like to start by saying that I don't have any problem with the planned price increase, or fair use updates for number of extensions. 3CX is a great platform with features far ahead of it's competitors and at a very reasonable price.

I do wish that as partners we were given advance notice of the pricing increases, the website redesign, and the fair use policy. I also don't understand why we're not able to be given information on price increases that will be effective next month.

Finally please correct me if I am wrong - our partner agreement requires that we are exclusive partners of 3CX and don't work with competing VOIP PBX providers?

There are several scenarios in this thread that 3CX has stated directly that they are not interested in selling to small customers with large numbers of extensions, as well as very small customers. Will partners be allowed to provide alternative VOIP platforms, or have a partnership with another PBX provider without violating our partner relationship with 3CX?

Thanks!

 

[fxbastler]

For those comfortable with a CFD, sure. But you can't argue that most end users like point and click and CFD scares them and that a dummy extension is easy.

Yes, I know. Not everyone can or wants to deal with the somewhat more in-depth, but certainly possible, programming of 3CX.

I'm talking about such specific cases. If one want's to save the foreseeable costs and precisely because one is using such manual solutions, then such programming would be advantageous. If they can't or don't want to, then they just have to spend money. But there are other ways to solve this, and that's worth knowing (in my opinion).

 

[fxbastler]

Will partners be allowed to provide alternative VOIP platforms, or have a partnership with another PBX provider without violating our partner relationship with 3CX?

My personal opinion and experience - and we are just a small 3CX partner. I can't say whether larger partners have similar restrictions. But we don't have any such exclusionary or exclusive contracts with 3CX, and we're free to offer our customers alternatives.

That's our decision, and we have to accept it and be accountable to the customer, our technicians who implement it, and our financial accounting department. If we do something like that, then it's certainly not something to advertise in the 3CX forum. That's not what it's there for. But we're free to do it elsewhere.

Speaking for myself, there's no reason to switch because the current alternatives are simply not viable in many respects.
I'm still waving the flag for 3CX.

 

[ABerry-CBM]

My personal opinion and experience - and we are just a small 3CX partner. I can't say whether larger partners have similar restrictions. But we don't have any such exclusionary or exclusive contracts with 3CX, and we're free to offer our customers alternatives.

That's our decision, and we have to accept it and be accountable to the customer, our technicians who implement it, and our financial accounting department. If we do something like that, then it's certainly not something to advertise in the 3CX forum. That's not what it's there for. But we're free to do it elsewhere.

Speaking for myself, there's no reason to switch because the current alternatives are simply not viable in many respects. I'm still waving the flag for 3CX.

I only ask because I value our partnership with 3CX.

 

[SweetAction]

Finally please correct me if I am wrong - our partner agreement requires that we are exclusive partners of 3CX and don't work with competing VOIP PBX providers?

You can find the current partner agreement at https://portal.3cx.com/partner/company at the bottom of the page.
Article 7, section 8 discussions only discussing 3CX - for 3CX provided leads.

As well, for Gold+, the following is stated in the additional requirements:
"Do not offer a low-cost or low-quality alternative brand."

 

[fxbastler]

As well, for Gold+, the following is stated in the additional requirements:
"Do not offer a low-cost or low-quality alternative brand."

Thanks for the clarification.

That's a point I'm not familiar with, and one we've never had to think about before - regardless of the fact that we're not a gold partner.

Note: Our partner agreement in Article 7 looks different, especially in point 8, which does not exist in this form.

 

[rayt]

For those comfortable with a CFD, sure. But you can't argue that most end users like point and click and CFD scares them and that a dummy extension is easy.

These customers should be talking to a partner then

 

[N_G]

Hi,
Maybe I’m being a bit slow here, but I think what confuses people (myself included) is the first two columns in the table :

“# User / Ext Range” and “Max # User / Ext.”

They both mention “User/Ext,” so it’s hard to tell what exactly is being measured in each.
A brief clarification in the table legend might avoid a lot of confusion — even for ChatGPT and us mere humans
Thanks

Yes true, well summarized - we will take it onboard.

 

[jhn]

@N_G

What would be / should be the correct approach for grandfathered 4 SC licenses versus proposed FUP changes?
I'm aware that this is a corner case, those 4 SC licenses were grandfathered when switching from perpetual to annual.
Could you please provide info on how to deal with these licenses, what to expect?

Appreciate your time and help.

 

[N_G]

@N_G

What would be / should be the correct approach for grandfathered 4 SC licenses versus proposed FUP changes?
I'm aware that this is a corner case, those 4 SC licenses were grandfathered when switching from perpetual to annual.
Could you please provide info on how to deal with these licenses, what to expect?

Appreciate your time and help.

Hi John, I don't understand the question, sorry. 4SC licenses will can have a maximum of 15 extensions....There is no difference to the regular annual ones.